Role of rural built environment in travel mode choice: Evidence from China

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2023.103649Get rights and content

Abstract

Although the built environment–travel connection has been extensively examined in urban settings, evidence from rural and small towns is still scarce. This paper addresses this gap by exploring the influence of the built environment on travel mode choice using national-level survey data from 119 rural towns throughout China. The results show that rural built environment variables significantly influence mode choice, with socioeconomic, regional economic and natural environment factors controlled: at regional level, close proximity to county centres, highways and bus stops tend to reduce car dependence. At local level, small-scale, compact, and mixed land use encourage walking and bus use. The built environment influences mode choices for shopping trips more than commuting trips. The results suggest that spatial planning for land use and transport networks will be effective in shaping greener travel and sustainable transport development in rural areas of China and in developing countries with similar contexts.

Introduction

The relationship between the built environment and travel mode choice has long been of interest to the field of urban planning and transport policies (Cao et al., 2009, Cervero, 2002, Cervero et al., 2019, Cervero and Radisch, 1996, Ewing and Cervero, 2010, Frank and Pivo, 1994, Handy et al., 2002, Schwanen and Mokhtarian, 2005a, Sun et al., 2017, Tennøy et al., 2022, Wang and Zhou, 2017, Zhao, 2013). Scholars have affirmed that high population density, diverse land use and walkable street designs are associated with fewer automobiles, shorter travel distances and less motorised trips (Cervero and Radisch, 1996, Ewing and Cervero, 2010, Schwanen and Mokhtarian, 2005a, Schwanen and Mokhtarian, 2005b, Sun et al., 2017, Zhao, 2013). Most previous research has, however, focused on urban contexts. Very few studies have focused on the form of rural towns and its links to travel behaviour, which is different from that in urban settings (Ao et al., 2020, Hine et al., 2012, Yu and Zhao, 2021).

In rural areas, travel choices of local residents can be fundamentally different from those in large urban areas, given the lack of transport alternatives, dispersed settlements, poor infrastructure, and distant services and markets (Porter, 2016, Pucher and Renne, 2005, Yu and Zhao, 2021). For example, in highly motorised societies, such as North America, Australia and the EU, residents in rural villages and small towns often own more personal automobiles and rely more heavily on them for transport than their urban counterparts. Rural car ownership and use have intensified with population loss, the decreasing availability of local services and the infeasibility of public transport provision (Hansen et al., 2020, Nutley, 1996, Nutley, 2003, Shergold et al., 2012). In low- and medium-income regions, such as sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, the rural population moves mainly by walking, cycling or motorbikes and undertakes few trips by four-wheel motorised transport owing to poor road conditions, the inaccessibility of motorised vehicles and the high incidence of poverty (ESCAP, 2019, Porter, 2016, Sieber, 1998). It is noticeable that rural contexts in China differ from those in highly motorised and the aforementioned low- and medium-income regions. China is a large agricultural country with a rural population of 509.79 million (2020 National Census). Over the past decade, the central government has invested a total of 743.3 billion CNY in rural roads, and the total mileage had reached 4.47 million kilometres by 2021, an increase of over 900,000 km from 2011 (Ministry of Transport, 2012-2022). By 2020, all rural towns and villages had been connected to paved roads, and more than 31,000 rural towns and 543,000 villages in China had access to rural–urban buses. The car ownership rate of rural households had increased to 24.7% which was 10.29 times that of 2010 (National Bureau of Statistics, 2020). The rapid rural motorisation of China offers a greater variety of travel choices for the rural population, but it also presents challenges to achieving low carbon goals. With its higher density of population than Western countries and its higher capability of infrastructure construction than less developed countries, rural China has become a pertinent context to observe the potential of low carbon transformation of rural travel behaviour across the globe.

Some studies have recognised the influence of environmental factors on travel mode choice in rural areas and small towns (Ao et al., 2020, Nutley, 1996, Stern, 1993, Yu and Zhao, 2021, Zhang et al., 2022). Compared with the goal of reducing motorised trips in urban environments, the emphasis in rural contexts has been on how the built environment, particularly accessibility factors, could enhance the mobility of rural people with more concern for poverty reduction, social inclusion and better quality of life (Farrington and Farrington, 2005, Kamruzzaman and Hine, 2011, McDonagh, 2006, Zhao and Yu, 2021). Rural geographers and planners believe that built environment factors could play a vital role in determining rural mobility on foot or by other modes of transport to access goods, services and activities in everyday life (Nutley & Thomas, 1995). To date, research has investigated the relationship between a variety of spatial factors and travel patterns. These factors range from regional to local in scale, such as geographical isolation, rural transport systems, facility accessibility etc. (Ahern and Hine, 2012, Ahern and Hine, 2015, Bryceson et al., 2008, Gray et al., 2001, Ranković Plazinić and Jović, 2018).

However, several research gaps remain to be addressed. First, unlike the extensive research on urban transport, there are only a few comprehensive modelling studies on the built environment and travel mode choice in rural contexts. The spatial indicators being measured often lack a systematic indicator framework. Also, there are obvious limitations to using urban-based indicators, given the diversity and dispersion of rural regions (Higgs & White, 2000). Recent studies of rural travel patterns such as those by Ao and colleagues (Ao et al., 2019a, Ao et al., 2019b, Ao et al., 2020) have adjusted the traditional urban-based indicators to rural conditions, but also omitted regional elements of the built and natural environment from consideration. Those regional elements are important given the relative self-sufficiency and natural dependence of rural settlements (Millward & Spinney, 2011).

Second, less focus has been placed on various types of travel mode choice, particularly for different travel destinations or purposes in rural contexts. Existing studies have generally focused on daily travel activities as a whole (Ao et al., 2020, Ranković Plazinić and Jović, 2018), a single purpose like commuting to work, obtaining healthcare or accessing education (Porter et al., 2010, Stern, 1993, Vasconcellos, 1997, Yoshimoto and Kawata, 1996), or a single mode like walking, driving or public transport (Nutley and Thomas, 1992, Porter, 2002a, Porter, 2002b, Sharav et al., 2019, Sultana et al., 2018). Other have simply divided journeys between car and non-car (Hansen et al., 2020, Hanson and Hildebrand, 2011, Shergold et al., 2012). Less attention has gone to the differences in travel mode choices between local and regional trips, or between commuting and non-work trips.

Third, the influence of the built environment on the travel mode choices of rural people remains fairly poorly understood. Although the provision of road infrastructure, public transport services and local facilities was thought to shape travel patterns, authors often place a greater focus on socioeconomic issues than on geographical considerations (Ahern and Hine, 2012, Burgmanis, 2012, Hansen et al., 2020, Porter et al., 2013, Winterton and Warburton, 2011). Researchers have sometimes believed that environmental indicators might have less relevance, because well-off and disadvantaged groups typically coexist in the administrative rural regions (Chapman and Shucksmith, 1996, Higgs and White, 2000, Yu and Zhao, 2021). Thus, studies have often been limited to certain social groups, such as older people, women or non-car owners (Lidbe et al., 2021, Porter, 2011, Shirgaokar et al., 2020). In such instances the relationships between environmental factors and travel choices amongst the wider population in rural areas remains unclear.

To address the above gaps, this empirical study examines the effects of the built environment on residents’ travel mode choices in 119 rural administrative towns in 31 Chinese provinces. The rural town is the primary authority in the administrative hierarchy in China. It is the main authority through which national and city governments’ orders and regulations are implemented in rural areas. The rural town is also expected to be the main reservoir for in-situ urbanisation in the coming 15 years, attracting population from villages and hamlets with an aim to slow down migration to large cities during the urbanisation process. In reality, however, some rural towns are losing large shares of their working population partly due to the inaccessibility of living opportunities (Liu & Li, 2017). In this regard, policies have been implemented to improve rural accessibility and mobility to enhance rural towns’ competitiveness with large cities in attracting rural people. Improving the rural built environment with regard to transport and land use has been a policy target to meet the increasing travel demands of rural residents. For instance, rural urbanisation and revitalisation policies such as the Rural Construction Action Plan (CCCPC, 2021) have been implemented to enhance the local accessibility of public services within rural towns. Moreover, with the increasing transport demands for rural–urban linkages, the 4B Rural Road Plan (Better Construction, Better Management, Better Maintenance and Better Operation) (Ministry of Transport, 2015) and the Building China’s Strength in Transport Plan (CCCPC, 2019) have been proposed to promote rural–urban transport connections. However, despite the rapid rural development of urbanisation and motorisation, whether the effects of these strategic orientation are consistent with the objectives of China’s low-carbon transport transformation remains to be seen.

Rural towns have their own characteristics, which engage agricultural and non-agricultural activities and integrate rural and urban lifestyles. Residents in rural towns have different demands for daily needs and travel modes from farm villagers and urban dwellers. With the increasing ownership of private vehicles (e.g., cars, motorcycles, electric bikes and bikes) and better provision of public transport services, transport options tend to be diverse for residents in rural towns (Zhao & Yu, 2020). The rapid change in the rural built environment following the aforementioned policies is likely to influence the travel mode choice of residents living in rural towns significantly. In this context, this study investigates the influence of built environment factors on travel mode choices in rural towns in China, exploring the potential for low-carbon mobility transformation through future rural planning and sustainable transport development in fast developing context with large and dense rural populations.

In this study, 12,439 respondents from 119 rural towns throughout China were randomly selected to explore the comprehensive influences of built environment factors at different geographical scales, the natural environment, the regional economy, and sociodemographic factors on the travel mode choice of local residents who live in rural towns. The travel mode choices for local and regional travel for both work and non-work purposes are analysed separately using multinomial logit (MNL) models. In addition to addressing the aforementioned gaps, this study makes a further contribution to the literature regarding the relationship between the built environment and low-carbon travel by examining three main hypotheses: first, close proximity to county centres and transport provision at regional level will reduce car dependence; second, small-scale, compact and mixed land use developments at the local level will encourage walking or other low-carbon travel modes; and finally, the effects of the built environment on mode choice will vary between work and non-work travel.

The rest of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 reviews the existing literature on the relationship between the built environment and travel mode choice in rural areas. Section 3 presents the survey data and the methodology. 4 Results, 5 Discussion illustrate the results and discussion, followed by the conclusion in the final section.

Section snippets

Built environment characteristics influencing travel mode choice in rural areas

The relationship between the environmental factors and travel behaviour in rural and small urban areas has been recognised since the late 1970 s (Higgs and White, 2000, Moseley, 1979, Nutley, 1980). Instead of the built environment, accessibility, with its land-use and transport components, was among the most cited terms in research and policies (Cullinane and Stokes, 1998, Farrington and Farrington, 2005, Ranković Plazinić and Jović, 2018). Authors generally argued that the geographical

Data and Sample collection

The availability of the 2016 National Rural Towns Survey Data in China allows a nuanced examination of this link. It was the first national-level survey conducted by the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development (MHURD), with 13 research institutes involved. The survey was conducted in 121 rural towns located in 31 provinces around China from June to August 2016, followed by initiatives to cultivate characteristic small towns (MHURD, 2016) and an unprecedented emphasis on the development

Travel mode use of residents living in rural towns

Travel mode use by trip purpose is in Fig. 3. In general, the results indicate the dominance of low-carbon transport modes, i.e., walking or (electric) bicycles. Walking is the main mode, accounting for about 50% among all purposes except commuting (35.60%). The proportion of walking is highest for visiting friends or relatives, travelling to the market and going shopping. The second favoured mode is (electric) bicycle, which might reflect its advantage of convenience and speed in a rural town

Discussion

With respect to the debate on the link between built environment and travel, this study contributes important evidence from rural towns of China. It shows that the built environment plays a significant role in shaping mode choice for both work and non-work trips in rural contexts, when controlling for other variables. To address the research gaps and the hypotheses mentioned in the Introduction, we advance the understanding of the following three questions.

Conclusion

This paper sheds light on the relationship between the built environment and travel behaviour by examining residents’ mode use in rural towns throughout China. The analyses have largely confirmed our three hypotheses. First, at regional level, closer proximity to county centres, high-quality roads and bus stops tend to reduce car dependence, while remoteness is associated with more private car usage than other sustainable modes. Second, small-scale, compact and mixed land use developments at

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by Beijing Postdoctoral Research Foundation (2022-ZZ-102), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41925003; 42130402), and Shenzhen Science and Technology Innovation Commission (JCYJ20220818100810024).

References (117)

  • P. Christiansen et al.

    Parking facilities and the built environment: impacts on travel behaviour

    Transp. Res. A Policy Pract.

    (2017)
  • B. Devkota et al.

    Planning for non-motorized travel in rural Nepal: a role for geographic information systems

    J. Transp. Geogr.

    (2012)
  • L. Diaz Olvera et al.

    The puzzle of mobility and access to the city in sub-saharan africa

    J. Transp. Geogr.

    (2013)
  • C. Ding et al.

    Exploring the influence of built environment on travel mode choice considering the mediating effects of car ownership and travel distance

    Transp. Res. A Policy Pract.

    (2017)
  • R. Etminani-Ghasrodashti et al.

    Modeling travel behavior by the structural relationships between lifestyle, built environment and non-working trips

    Transp. Res. A Policy Pract.

    (2015)
  • J. Farrington et al.

    Rural accessibility, social inclusion and social justice: towards conceptualisation

    J. Transp. Geogr.

    (2005)
  • H. Graham et al.

    The experiences of everyday travel for older people in rural areas: a systematic review of UK qualitative studies

    J. Transp. Health

    (2018)
  • D. Gray et al.

    Car dependence in rural Scotland: transport policy, devolution and the impact of the fuel duty escalator

    J. Rural. Stud.

    (2001)
  • S. Handy et al.

    How the built environment affects physical activity: views from urban planning

    Am. J. Prev. Med.

    (2002)
  • S. Hansen et al.

    To drive or not to drive: driving cessation amongst older adults in rural and small towns in Canada

    J. Transp. Geogr.

    (2020)
  • G. Higgs et al.

    Alternatives to census-based indicators of social disadvantage in rural communities

    Prog. Plan.

    (2000)
  • M. Kamruzzaman et al.

    Participation index: a measure to identify rural transport disadvantage?

    J. Transp. Geogr.

    (2011)
  • M. Kersting et al.

    For the young and old alike – an analysis of the determinants of seniors’ satisfaction with the true door-to-door DRT system EcoBus in rural Germany

    J. Transp. Geogr.

    (2021)
  • J.M. Kolodinsky et al.

    It is not how far you go, it is whether you can get there: modeling the effects of mobility on quality of life in rural New England

    J. Transp. Geogr.

    (2013)
  • F. Lera-López et al.

    Rural environment stakeholders and policy making: Willingness to pay to reduce road transportation pollution impact in the Western Pyrenees

    Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ.

    (2014)
  • A. Lidbe et al.

    Changes in the travel patterns of older Americans with medical conditions: a comparison of 2001 and 2017 NHTS data

    Transport. Res. Interdiscipl. Perspect.

    (2021)
  • P. Luo et al.

    The role of social influence in green travel behavior in rural China

    Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ.

    (2022)
  • M. Manoj et al.

    Commute travel and its effect on housing tenure choice of males and females living in the urban and rural areas of Bangalore city in India

    J. Transp. Geogr.

    (2015)
  • J. McDonagh

    Transport policy instruments and transport-related social exclusion in rural Republic of Ireland

    J. Transp. Geogr.

    (2006)
  • H. Millward et al.

    Time use, travel behavior, and the rural–urban continuum: results from the Halifax STAR project

    J. Transp. Geogr.

    (2011)
  • E. Mirzaei et al.

    Exploring the effect of the built environment, weather condition and departure time of travel on mode choice decision for different travel purposes: evidence from Isfahan. Iran

    Case Stud. Transport Policy

    (2021)
  • S. Nutley

    Accessibility, mobility and transport-related welfare: the case of rural Wales

    Geoforum

    (1980)
  • S. Nutley

    Rural transport problems and non-car populations in the USA: A UK perspective

    J. Transp. Geogr.

    (1996)
  • S. Nutley

    Indicators of transport and accessibility problems in rural Australia

    J. Transp. Geogr.

    (2003)
  • S. Nutley

    Monitoring rural travel behaviour: a longitudinal study in Northern Ireland 1979–2001

    J. Transp. Geogr.

    (2005)
  • D. Owen et al.

    Skills, transport and economic development: evidence from a rural area in England

    J. Transp. Geogr.

    (2012)
  • G. Porter et al.

    Transport and mobility constraints in an aging population: health and livelihood implications in rural Tanzania

    J. Transp. Geogr.

    (2013)
  • G. Porter

    Living in a Walking World: Rural Mobility and Social Equity Issues in Sub-Saharan Africa

    World Dev.

    (2002)
  • B. Ranković Plazinić et al.

    Women and transportation demands in rural Serbia

    J. Rural. Stud.

    (2014)
  • B. Ranković Plazinić et al.

    Mobility and transport potential of elderly in differently accessible rural areas

    J. Transp. Geogr.

    (2018)
  • S. Saneinejad et al.

    Modelling the impact of weather conditions on active transportation travel behaviour

    Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ.

    (2012)
  • T. Schwanen et al.

    What affects commute mode choice: neighborhood physical structure or preferences toward neighborhoods?

    J. Transp. Geogr.

    (2005)
  • T. Schwanen et al.

    What if you live in the wrong neighborhood? The impact of residential neighborhood type dissonance on distance traveled

    Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ.

    (2005)
  • A. Seedhouse et al.

    Potholes and pitfalls: the impact of rural transport on female entrepreneurs in Nigeria

    J. Transp. Geogr.

    (2016)
  • N. Sharav et al.

    What transit service does the periphery need? A case study of Israel’s rural country

    Transp. Res. A Policy Pract.

    (2019)
  • I. Shergold et al.

    Transport-related social exclusion amongst older people in rural Southwest England and Wales

    J. Rural. Stud.

    (2012)
  • M. Shirgaokar et al.

    Do rural older adults take fewer trips than their urban counterparts for lack of a ride?

    J. Transp. Geogr.

    (2020)
  • N. Sieber

    Appropriate transport and rural development in Makete district, Tanzania

    J. Transport Geogr.

    (1998)
  • S. Stern

    A disaggregate discrete choice model of transportation demand by elderly and disabled people in rural Virginia

    Transp. Res. A Policy Pract.

    (1993)
  • Z. Sultana et al.

    Modeling frequency of rural demand response transit trips

    Transp. Res. A Policy Pract.

    (2018)
  • Cited by (3)

    1

    co-Corresponding author.

    View full text